Slashdot Mirror

investigation Democrat staffer who (1) apparently learned the value of hiding and destroying data and (2) behaved with a remarkable lack of ethics (oh, that's a Scripps-Howard News Service article rather than some right-wing blog, in case some dishonest idiot at Media Matters decides to kill the link)

Contrary to some internet rumors, she was not fired for her actions, BUT she DID all sorts of legally unethical actions like working to deny then-President Nixon any defense lawyers.

Her (Democrat) boss from that time was on-record saying he regretted that he did not report her to the bar (for disbarment - to be stripped of her power to practice law as a lawyer) and also that her lack of ethics made it so he could not recommend her for any future position. This information surfaced during her 2008 Presidential capaign and Democrat operatives ran to him to get a retraction, which he subsequently issued - but that does NOT undo his earlier non-Democrat-capaign-related statements.

Remember: The communications of high-government officials are part of the Nation's historical record of how and why national decisions are made. These records, BY LAW, are the property of the American People and are supposed to go into the National Archives where they MIGHT get sealed (for years if necessary) but where they will eventually be open to the people and their historians. The information in these records is part of the people's checks on their politicians and are available for FOIA searches. During the Bush years, Democrats insisted that Republicans NOT do government business on private e-mail servers, so the GOP setup accounts for political activity (where people like Karl Rove did their partican political communications) and separate servers for the government work. Then the Democrats screamed that the Republicans might be doing something government-related on the GOP servers, so ultimately those eneded-up getting sifted by the archives people. Independently, SOME Democrats even hacked into Republican privete personal email accounts (remember when they dumped all of Governor Palin's private emails onto the web???). If Hillary is any guide, the new rule for Democrats is: "NEVER let anybody see Democrat emails.... just keep them on Democrat servers and then wipe-end-destroy the servers if anybody asks for the data"

And that's what they want you to believe.

http://mediamatters.org/resear...

[T]he Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA -- and most state RFRAs -- do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to "the free exercise of religion." The federal RFRA doesn't contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina's; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

[...]

What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has "free exercise" rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year's decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court's five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees' statutory right to contraceptive coverage.

Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business's "free exercise" right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, there's a lot of evidence that the new wave of "religious freedom" legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple's wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in "public accommodations" on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico's RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state's Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply "because the government is not a party." [The Atlantic, 3/30/15]

Then there's what really happened:

http://mediamatters.org/resear...

The private e-mail thing was the least of his worries. It's like saying you got busted for drunk driving with a beer in your hand after having robbed a bank at gunpoint and kidnapped one of the tellers. But a tail light was out (gasp! shock! horror!).

It specifically is illegal actually.

You forget this pesky "t" variable in the equation that represents TIME.

It is illegal *NOW*. It wasn't illegal when she was in office. The requirement to use government hosted email was passed after Clinton resigned and only became legally effective in November of 2014. Clinton left office in February of 2013.

http://mediamatters.org/resear...

Did not violate any rules regarding email retention

Yes, she did. It may not have been against the law just yet, but it was certainly against the State Department's own rules already.

The stupid arrangement left communications of the top American diplomat vulnerable — something Russia and other enemies would be happy to exploit on any day, but fine, a President is not supposed to be proficient in communication security.

But we should discard public servants at the first sign of hypocrisy — and that's exactly, what's on display here. And here...

Did what every other Secretary of State did in regards to email.

Citations needed.

Hillary is not a bad choice.

Lovers gonna love.

Did not violate any rules regarding email retention

Yes, she did. It may not have been against the law just yet, but it was certainly against the State Department's own rules already.

The stupid arrangement left communications of the top American diplomat vulnerable — something Russia and other enemies would be happy to exploit on any day, but fine, a President is not supposed to be proficient in communication security.

But we should discard public servants at the first sign of hypocrisy — and that's exactly, what's on display here. And here...

Did what every other Secretary of State did in regards to email.

Citations needed.

Hillary is not a bad choice.

Lovers gonna love.

The law doesn't forbid the use of personal accounts.

But that's beside the point, as you can't break a law that wasn't even written, let alone put into effect, until after you left office.

The Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014 became law on November 26, 2014.
She stepped down as Secretary Feb 1, 2013.

http://mediamatters.org/resear...

Except she didn't break the law.
You can't break a law that wasn't even written, let alone put into effect, until after you left office.

The Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014 became law on November 26, 2014.
She stepped down as Secretary Feb 1, 2013.

http://mediamatters.org/resear...

Bingo give the man a cigar.
A lot of has come out in the past day over this topic, and it is increasingly seeming to be another manufactured non-scandal.

The Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014 became law on November 26, 2014.
She stepped down as Secretary Feb 1, 2013.

http://mediamatters.org/resear...

Of this there can be no argument. It is established fact.

So you will have no problem proving your claim ?

Well, Fox News said so!.

And Sean Hannity says so too!.

Because we all know that Fox News and AM Talk radio entertainers never lie!

You like the internet as it is now?
Then you like net neutrality.
It's that simple.

Granted, the GOP tried, and failed, to capture the term with their deceitful House Bill a couple weeks ago, but most folks saw right through it.

And as for the big scary ACA:
http://mediamatters.org/resear...
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-ma...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07...

Consider the way Anthony Watts was savaged for blatant idiocy by Media Matters in Climate Skeptic Proves Conclusively That He Knows How To Waste Time, Money, his opinion doesn't carry much weight. If you're going to tell us we should listen to someone, at least find somebody with more chops than this "Hey, they used video editing in a video!" moron.

Honestly, reading that made my opinion of Anthony Watts fall to a new low. It's really pathetic when someone claims "Fraud!" because video editing was used to make the thermometer readings actually legible.

I don't know, if you sincerely don't understand my request, or are trying to weasel out without losing face (too much).

Here it is again: please, post pairs of links. The first link in each pair shall point to a quantifiable prediction, the second — to its materialization within 80% of the predicted quantity.

In particular I direct your attention to this graph of Arctic sea ice models vs. observations.

That chart references some predictions without links. The dramatic bold red line on it begins in 1950 — is that, when the first predictions were made? Where are they, can I read them?

But, Ok, let's stipulate the prediction really was made. Was it a scientific one — based on a decent scientific theory, or is it one of those "stalled clock" sort of thing, that happens to be correct twice a day? Two questions arise:

1. If it were a solid theory linking Global warming to declines in sea ice, why did sea ice grow in Antarctica during the same period? Maybe, it did not grow at quite the same rate, but the overall ice-cover decline is certainly far less dramatic, than your chart shows.
2. The second question is, can we trust the cited observations at all — or are they being "adjusted" to, infamously, "hide the decline"? Seems like the latter is the case — the American Thinker article linked to above is rather illuminating: the actual measurements measure area of ice-cover, but the scary charts plot the adjusted extent values, without explanation for the adjustments and their inconsistency. It does not have to be outright fraud — but such measurements are inherently imprecise. Observations are made by satellites and then need to be munged (for "quality control and homogenization") by computer algorithms. Programs, that change over the years (as do the #defines inside them) at the hands of people. People with agendas and the burning desire to convince.

So, after much back-and-forth, you were able to, sort of, cite one very questionable observation (that disappeared since then as the ice returned on both poles since 2012), that may or may not have been predicted... And you want the world to change its way of life based on that?

Regarding Fox News:

• http://watchingthedeniers.word...
• http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/de...
• http://mediamatters.org/resear...
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
• http://www.gcbl.org/blog/2014/...

Oh look.
Another racist spouting lies got modded insightful.

http://www.mediamatters.org/re...

http://www.mediamatters.org/re...

For some reason after a Christian zealot beheaded his roommate in Stillwater, I never heard my pastor denouce that kind of violence perpeuated in Christianity's name.

For some reason every time a Christian kills someone, not only do we not hear christians denouncing it, but we also never hear bigots like demanding that do so.

And once again, you reconfirm your racism as well.
Everything you stated is both false and hate speech.

It might interest you to note that one of the police officers killeed was in fact Muslim. Leaders are condeming it. It is a religion of peace, just as much any other religion with a chackered past, and a book that people can cherry pick out of to prove any point they wish. A handful of extremists do not define a religion of more than a billion people, no matter how many cartoonists or abortion clinics those extremists attack.

From http://www.mediamatters.org/re... :

ButOnline, Fox News Shows Muslim Community Leaders Denouncing The Attack

On FoxNews.Com, Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA Spokesperson Condemns Paris Attack.DuringaJanuary 7interviewwith Fox host Gregg JarettonFoxNews.com, Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA Spokesperson Qasim Rashid condemned the attackin Paris and refuted the notion that Islam is inherently violent(emphasis added):

JARRETT: Do you think more Muslims in the Muslim-American community need to speak up and, like you, condemn this kind of attack?

RASHID: I think Muslims are doing a very good job of speaking up. And I think there's an important conversation to be had about recognizing that this is not an Islamic act of terror -- this is just an act of terror done by people claiming to ascribe to Islam.When we studyIslam, we see clearly that the Quran condemns this kind of violence categorically. That Prophet Muhammad said that aMuslim is one from whom all others are safe.

[...]

JARRETT: If, as you say, the Quran condemns thiskind ofviolence, why is it these Islamic extremists, these terrorists use the Quran as justification for committing these kinds of violent acts?

RASHID: Well,it's the same reason why any extremist group uses scripture. There's no shortage of extremists in everything. Let's not forget the Lord's Resistance Army, a Ugandan terrorist group, that claims to beChristian. And I would vehemently argue against anyone who would blame the bible, orJesusChrist, for their acts of terrorism.This is not about religion. This is about political power, this is about uneducated, ignorant youth who are being manipulated by clerics and extremists. And this is why it's all the more important for us, as the moderates, regardless of faith, to stay united and combat this .[FoxNews.com,1/7/15]

Many OtherMuslim OrganizationsHaveCondemned The Attack

French Muslim Council: Attack Is An "Extremely Grave Barbaric Action."In a statement,the French Muslim Council condemned theParis attack as an"extremely grave barbaric action," and called it "an attackagainst democracy and the freedom of the press." [AlJazeera.com,1/7/15]

Muslim Council Of Britain Condemns Attack: "Nothing Justifies The Taking Of Life."The Muslim Council of Britain condemned the attack, saying "The Muslim Council of Britain condemns this attack. Whomever the attackers are, and whatever the cause may be, nothing justifies the taking of life." [Muslim Council of Britain,1/7/15]

Council On American-Islamic Relations : "We Strongly Condemn This Brutal And Cowardly Attack."CAIR strongly condemned the attack,calling it "brutal and cowardly," and used the opportunity to reiterate theorganization's "repudiation of any such assault on freedom of speech, even speech that mocks faiths and religious figures":

"We strongly condemn this brutal and cowar

But still, it might be ok if the covered courses are useful

And thus begins the road to ruin. No, it is not Ok to force people at gun-point (which is how taxes are collected) to pay for other people's anything. It worked so well for the public schools, which now cost 4 times more per pupil, than in 1960-ies, we are dizzy with success, aren't we — even if 2/3rd of the nation's 8th graders can't be said to read "proficiently".

not just "community organizer" type courses

And that's the other evil of it — not only will taxpayers be forced to pay for it, the actual courses will be decided by our benevolent and omniscient rulers. Do you suppose, it will be possible to avoid taking "Womyn's Studies" or "Climate Change Mitigation"?

http://mediamatters.org/video/...

Multiple congressional reports, all but one led by the GOP, and they all say the same thing: There is no scandal. The White House told the truth. Fox is lying.

But hey, the facts are known about Whitewater too, but that hasnt stopped you idiots from continuing to push that fake scandal for over 20 years either.
http://mediamatters.org/resear...

that fact that you dont even compherend that "climategate" was a completely fabricated scandal shows how ill informed you are.
you also are apparently ignorant of how scientfic funding works.

you're also wrong about how science works. climate science is a real phsyical science, unlike economics which is a behavorial science. physical science does not lend itself to different conclusions as the methods of science itself quickly weed out conclusions that arent supported by evidence. This is very different from economics in which the unpredictability of the human animal is a tremendous factor. in a phsyical science the same inputs cause the same outputs. In a behavioral science like economics there is no such garuntee.

you are in short, an ill informed idiot.

http://arstechnica.com/science...
http://mythopedia.mediamatters...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://mythopedia.mediamatters...

that fact that you dont even compherend that "climategate" was a completely fabricated scandal shows how ill informed you are.
you also are apparently ignorant of how scientfic funding works.

you're also wrong about how science works. climate science is a real phsyical science, unlike economics which is a behavorial science. physical science does not lend itself to different conclusions as the methods of science itself quickly weed out conclusions that arent supported by evidence. This is very different from economics in which the unpredictability of the human animal is a tremendous factor. in a phsyical science the same inputs cause the same outputs. In a behavioral science like economics there is no such garuntee.

you are in short, an ill informed idiot.

http://arstechnica.com/science...
http://mythopedia.mediamatters...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://mythopedia.mediamatters...

unfortunateley, while Fox was the epicenter of the worst of the nutjobbery, everyone got in on the act.

and Fox actually had one of the shining lights of rationality in Shep Smith.
its just too bad his fellow employees didnt listen to him, and kept spouting crackpotterys about how Obama wanted us to be infected to make us feel Africa's pain....

But Shep Smith has a sort of record for being that voice ( http://mediamatters.org/blog/2... ), and its a bit amazing that he still has his job after not towing the company line. Like when he went off on another Fox guy for condoning and dismissing torture.

I already pay a small fortune in school tax

You are quite right to curse. The per-pupil spending has quadrupled since 1960ies (inflation-adjusted). And that's just national average. The locales with high population density — where you'd expect economies of scale to provide for lower per-pupil costs — actually pay even more. But the quality of education has remained level at best — 70% of 8th-graders can't be said to read proficiently!

No one in their right mind would willingly pay 4 times more for the same bad (and worsening) service, if they had a choice. Thus, it is not surprising, the teachers' unions have made ensuring, you have no other choice, one of their top priorities.

Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. A copy of his application letter and Greenpeace's response are available here (PDF). [Greenpeace, 12/7/10]

What's sad is there's so many complete fucking morons in this country who believe these lying sacks of shit who are just out to make a buck.

Quit being a koolaid drinking drama queen... and quit lying.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2...

....and more directly: http://www.kcba.org/judicial/l...

Case in point, the DOE loan program. People like you like to cry "solyndra" all day long, but you conveniently ignore that the entire program on the whole has been an unqualified success,

You mean this talking point?

http://mediamatters.org/resear...

Actually, that data tells you that the government is investing badly: the government is taking insufficient risks.

More importantly, though, even if the government had done a good job with those investments, you are still failing to account for opportunity costs; that is, what are all the businesses that haven't been created because the government redirected this money to other purposes.

If it didnt, the concept would have gone away years ago.

So you are saying that the status quo is evidence that something is working? Why do progressives want to change anything then?

But again, you dont care about reality.

You're living in an economic fantasy world.

Sharyl Attkisson Fox News Her Next Stop?

You know, I was halfway joking, but here we go...

"Is The Government Orchestrating The Ebola Crisis To Confiscate Guns?"

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2...

You are gullible. You haven't even managed to name a right wing equivalent of the Koch Brothers, but that doesn't stop you believing that they must exist.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2...

I haven't looked closely at that link you posted, but every similar story I've looked into has gotten big "wasteful" numbers by adding together the entire IT budgets for multiple years and multiple projects, and then presenting it as a "OMG government waste! OMG OMG!!!" story.

And sadly people lap it up because everyone loves whining about things but refuses to verify the stories. Not that government is perfect, but it certainly won't get better when most individual "government failure" stories are full of lies and misinformation.

For example, the article you linked to says "As of November 2013, the federal exchange healthcare.gov. is estimated to have cost $677 million". Which is a complete lie: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2...

It's trivial to find that that figure is a lie, yet that article still listed it. And you believed it. And I bet you'll keep on reading that website and believing their lies.

Why?

Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq anyone?

Read the IPCC reports

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are exactly the sort of people I was talking about — the ones, whose salaries and authority depend on Climate Change being a big deal. The conflict of interest is so glaringly obvious, it is comparable to the proverbial elephant in the room. They've been caught red-handed before.

The "reports" they produce are written by people appointed by governments. Few of them are scientists, and what few scientists there are seek not knowledge, but ways to confirm their pre-existing convictions — and when the data fails to do that, they "homogenize" it until it does... And though governments differ world-wide, they all have one thing in common: they are all convinced (often sincerely), that they "know better" and could "do good" if only they had more control over their subjects and their pretty little heads.

This is why you have never heard of any "green" measure, that would have reduced rather than increased the government's power over Individuals, have you?..

Not to mention Carbon Dioxide! Dear God, won't somebody think of the Carbon Dioxide!

'Extremism' is an evil concept. An 'extremist' implies someone on the edges of the bell curve of belief - but guess what - most people think of themselves as being in the middle of that curve, no matter what their own beliefs. So in practice 'extremist' means 'extremely different from me'.
The purpose of law enforcement should be to stop acts of violence, terrorism, subversion, whatever - but never to stop mere difference. In a violent society, peace is extremist. In a dictatorship, freedom is extremist. In a racially segregated society, equality is extremist.
It's no wonder authorities love the word 'extremism', it's a slur for any kind of dissent.
Remember, the direct opposite of 'extremism' is 'conformism'.

Wrong.

http://mediamatters.org/resear...

(copy pasta)

MYTH: This Case Is About Abortion, Not Contraceptives
Fox News Contributor Steve Hayes: The President Wants Health Insurance Plans To Cover Not Only "These Abortifacients," But Abortion Too. In an appearance on Fox News with America's Newsroom co-host Bill Hemmer, Hayes described a different challenge to the contraception mandate by falsely equating contraception with abortifacients and speculated government coverage of "abortions themselves" was the president's goal:

HEMMER: The point for this group of Catholic nuns is that if you make us provide birth control, not only does it violate our religious beliefs, but if we do not do it and adhere to the law, we will suffer fines that will cause us to go bankrupt.

HAYES: Right. And the administration -- remember, back in the spring -- proposed what they called a compromise, which would have allowed these non-profit groups to sort of certify that they weren't providing, actually providing this contraceptive and abortifacient coverage but then the insurance companies would be doing so on their behalf and the argument that you hear from those representing this group and others is that's not good enough because in effect what we would be doing is signing off and facilitating the coverage of these kinds of contraceptives and abortifacients for our employees.

HEMMER: Steve, just back up a little bit. Why did the administration think it was necessary to include this contraception mandate in the health care bill to begin with?

HAYES: Well, I think we've heard from the president pretty consistently that he believes that the government should be in the business of covering all of women's health and that is to include birth control, other contraceptives and these abortifacients -- and, I think if they had their way, abortions themselves. [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 1/2/14, via Media Matters]

FACT: The Health Benefits Challenged In Hobby Lobby Are Contraceptives, Not Abortifacients
The New York Times: Contraceptives At Issue "Would Not Meet Abortion Opponents' Definition Of Abortion-Inducing Drugs." Although the plaintiffs argue that they "sincerely believe" that certain forms of birth control actually work by inducing an abortion, a report by the Times indicates this belief goes against scientific consensus:

Based on the belief that a fertilized egg is a person, some religious groups and conservative politicians say disrupting a fertilized egg's ability to attach to the uterus is abortion, "the moral equivalent of homicide," as Dr. Donna Harrison, who directs research for the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, put it. Mitt Romney recently called emergency contraceptives "abortive pills." And two former Republican presidential candidates, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, have made similar statements.

But an examination by The New York Times has found that the federally approved labels and medical Web sites do not reflect what the science shows. Studies have not established that emergency contraceptive pills prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb, leading scientists say. Rather, the pills delay ovulation, the release of eggs from ovaries that occurs before eggs are fertilized, and some pills also thicken cervical mucus so sperm have trouble swimming.

It turns out that the politically charged debate over morning-after pills and abortion, a divisive issue in this election year, is probably rooted in outdated or incorrect scientific guesses about how the pills work. Because they block creation of fertilized eggs, they would not meet abortion opponents' definition of abortion-inducing drugs. In contrast, RU-486, a medication prescribed for terminating pregnancies, destroys implanted embryos.

The notion that morning-after pills prevent egg

they may believe it do so.
but every scientist in the world could tell them they are wrong, their beliefs not withstanding.

But the court has now decided that science does not matter, only sincerely held beliefs.
That is a huge, and hugely disturbing, precedent.

Also: the corprate veil is now meaningless. The door to corporations having religious rights is now open.
Such a thing has the potential to establish the same thing as all those "religious freedom" bills in various states (aka, legal to discriminate because God), only even broader. Can you imagine being able to be fired because you don't go to Church often enough?

http://mediamatters.org/resear...

WRONG.

This was NEVER about abortificants.
That is a lie. You are completely and totally misinformed.
Hobby Lobby may believe it to cause an abortion, but their belief does not trump scientific fact.
The scientific facts is that is it NOT an abortion inducing treatment.
Unfortunately the Roberts court has decided that they do not care about science, only about a "genuinely held belief", regardless of its accuracy.

You need to read this, and then you will understand just how badly the Court screwed up.
And maybe you'll stop repeating myths as well.
http://mediamatters.org/resear...

WUWT's publisher gets Koch funding by way of the Heartland Institute... so, not "random".
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2...

Now I get to put my first /. mod on my (rather small) enemies list and my exclusion list: Timothy.

The actual problem of IRS targeting groups that the establishment did not like is real, and provable.

No it's not. Facts are not on your side. After changes to tax laws, the IRS was flooded with requests for tax-exempt status. The IRS took a short cut in trying to weed out legitimate non-profits from scammers. In ALL previous Congressional investigations, it was found the IRS investigated but only denied status to one group: A progressive, liberal group. Please get some facts before you spout nonsense.

If they can bring up non-issues as part of the conspiracy it dilutes the actual crime.

Non-issues are non-issues. In my world, they are called red-herrings. They are not part of the crime. That's very faulty logic.

Fox didn't magically become pro Republican overnight, they work for the same establishment they have been working for over the last decade (at least)

Wow, you must be in serious denial not to see that Fox has been pro-Republican. There are numerous examples of Fox having Republican talking points. Bear in mind, they didn't bring on a Republican who had those points; they invoked those points themselves.

Bull.
The EPA is an independent government agency.
They are not required to run to mommy for permission for everything they do.
FACT: The EPA Is Essentially Required To Regulate Carbon Emissions By Law.

Same goes for water and everything else they do. After all, what is the point of creating a independent national agency otherwise?

And "Agree to disagree" is the dodge of the ignorant who cannot support his position.

Here ya go, from http://mediamatters.org/resear...
You've been show the path to edumication, but will you take it?

Despite quadrupling per-pupil costs of public schools since 1962 (inflation-adjusted), the education remains the same or is getting worse. In some particularly well-managed cities, the costs are even higher and the results — even worse, than national average. This article is about Math, but ability to read remains rather sub-par as well — with only 30% of 8th-graders, for example, considered "proficient" readers.

Clearly, we need to spend more money...

What's next? "You mean I can't bludgeon you to death with my garden shovel? This is all Obama's fault, the damned communist!"

This would be funny if it weren't for Sean Hannity trying to make a hero out of the dude in Minnesota who executed a couple of teenagers for burglary.

Are you talking about the studies that show men who work longer hours in the same field as women get paid more?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/re...

http://www.commentarymagazine....

http://mediamatters.org/video/...

"Attila Dimedici", on the other hand, apparently provides this service for free.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Fox News Reportedly Used Fake Commenter Accounts To Rebut Critical Blog Posts.

If you want to see what American fascism would look like, well this is it.

Honestly, if this is what American fascism looks like, then American fascism looks silly and weak.

Look, I'm all about fairness. I think both sides of the political divide should be subject to the same level of government scrutiny. Preferentially enforcing laws on one group and not another is a kind of discrimination.

At the same time, some of your examples are some really sketchy Republicans.

James O’Keefe - You mean the guy who put out a doctored video in order to deceitfully sway public opinion? http://mediamatters.org/resear...

Dinesh D’Souza - If he's guilty, he's guilty. I mean it's not like Republicans haven't done underhanded and shadey things in the past, so I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if D'Sousa was doing illegal things. For example, how about this story about how Republicans repeatedly called a voter-pickup telephone number so that they could stop real (mostly democratic) voters from getting to the election polls on the day of an election? http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

In October 2002, Charles McGee, executive director of the New Hampshire Republican Party, was mailed a Democratic flier that offered Election Day rides to the polls. The circular listed telephone numbers of party offices in five cities and towns.

"I paused and thought to myself, I might find out -- I might think of an idea of disrupting those operations," McGee later testified.... When voting began Nov. 5, McGee's plan worked like a charm. For two crucial hours, an Idaho telecommunications firm tied up Democratic and union phone lines, bringing their get-out-the-vote plans to a halt. The effort helped John E. Sununu (R) win his Senate seat by 51 to 47 percent, a 19,151-vote margin.

McGee and two other participants -- Republican National Committee regional political director James Tobin and GOP consultant Allen Raymond-- have been found guilty of criminally violating federal communications law. Tobin will be sentenced today in U.S. District Court in Concord, N.H.

Or how about New Jersey governor's latest trick of shutting down traffic lanes to punish a mayor who wouldn't endorse him for governor? http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

How about the North Carolina's admission (on camera) that election changes were being pushed forward, not because of voter fraud, but rather, to "kick democrat's butts" (i.e. stop Democratic voters from actually voting). Jump to 3:30: http://www.thedailyshow.com/wa...

If your examples are examples of "fascism", then how is this also not an example of "fascism" coming from Republicans?

Republicans have used a lot of dirty tricks to win elections, so it's not really surprising that they'd end up in the crosshairs of investigations.

Doesn't matter how warm Europe is. Cold weather mean good times for trolls. These people really mean what they say. The public debate in climate change is barely grapling with the elementary difference between local and global temperatures, and that's exactly what the trolls want.

I've never watched or read anything by Ed Schultz and I can't stand MSNBC.

I get it from various online analysts, The Daily Show, RightWingWatch.org, and by watching actual clips of Fox News.

A couple quick examples are Fox's infamous reaction to the "ground zero mosque" and their demonization of one of the fundraisers who happened to be Fox's #2 shareholder (of course they'd never tell a viewer). They also employ contributors who claim in other venues that Obama tried to nuke the US.

So. Do you have any examples of MSNBC telling whoppers as large as the Ground Zero nonsense or employing contributors as whacky as Erik Rush?

Since 1962 the per-pupil costs of public schools has quadrupled (inlation-adjusted — the nominal increase is 25-times!), while the results remain just as — if not even more — disappointing. Indeed, merely 30% of 8th-graders are deemed proficient in reading . Will a "makerbot" help solve this fundamental problem? Somehow I doubt it...

What would that "fundamental problem" be exactly? That education outpaces inflation? It takes a very casual understanding of economics to know why this is happening. Can you figure it out? Here is a hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#Over_time.2C_by_race_and_sex

Cliffs in case you are still too dense: when the cost of the labor force enabling education in the US triples, you can expect the cost of providing the education to do the same (see: 1961 to 2004.) Still want to bicker about how education is too expensive? Clearly you know how expensive it is to be ignorant.

Since 1962 the per-pupil costs of public schools has quadrupled (inlation-adjusted — the nominal increase is 25-times!), while the results remain just as — if not even more — disappointing. Indeed, merely 30% of 8th-graders are deemed proficient in reading . Will a "makerbot" help solve this fundamental problem? Somehow I doubt it...